Smaller awards of up to $1 million would be distributed every other year to inventions in four categories: hydrogen production, storage, distribution, and utilization. In alternate years, one prize of up to $4 million would go to those who achieve prototypes of hydrogen-powered vehicles or other products that meet certain predetermined benchmarks.

"To those that missed the national security implications of our current posture and reliance on a fuel source that we don't control, I would encourage them to think beyond the possibility that maybe the market can come up with a solution to that," Rep. Bob Inglis, a South Carolina Republican and the bill's chief sponsor, said at a morning hearing here of the U.S. House of Representatives Science Committee. "Perhaps there's a role for government in getting us as quickly as possible beyond that danger point."

The measure draws inspiration from what supporters deem a proven track record of breakthroughs driven by prizes. They credited a $25,000 prize offered in 1919 by French businessman Raymond Orteig for bringing stardom to then-unknown pilot Charles Lindbergh and his pioneering transatlantic airplane flight--and more importantly, igniting the nation's interest in aviation. More recently, 26 teams from seven countries competed for the $10-million Ansari X-Prize, granted to the first privately funded team to devise a three-person, reusable spacecraft that could fly to 100 kilometers above the Earth.

X-Prize Foundation CEO Peter Diamandis said prizes work because, if done well, they attract a flurry of outside attention from people in a variety of fields who aren't necessarily inclined to deal with the bureaucracy involved in federal research grants. "That allows the most brilliant, sometimes the most radical, thinkers to enter and solve the problems we have," he told the politicians.

President Bush has already made research on viable hydrogen fuel-cell cars a major part of his energy policy agenda. Congress earmarked $136 million specifically for such research in 2006, down from $149 million in 2005.

The technology's expense, however, remains a major hurdle. According to researchers at the U.S. Department of Energy, hydrogen would cost three or four times more than gasoline. Fuel cells cost at least five times as much as standard combustion engines and aren't nearly as durable. It's also proving tough to build hydrogen storage systems that can hold enough fuel to travel more than 300 miles without taking up too much space in the vehicle.

"We need independent scientific breakthroughs in each of these three areas," David Greene, a corporate fellow at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, told politicians.

Greene said he believed the prizes would "increase the likelihood" of such advancements occurring but strongly cautioned the committee against using those incentives as a substitute for research and development investments. The existing bill contains a section that says the prizes "shall not be considered" such a substitute.

But some members suggested that's an impossible goal given the current federal budget situation. "Neither president nor Congress is going to be able to find the money for such a prize without taking money out of other vital energy research and development programs," said Rep. Judy Biggert, an Illinois Republican. All told, the bill calls for $55 million each year between 2007 and 2016 to run the program.

"One of the things we hear about is the huge profits made by the oil and gas industry, so why not use the profits to pay for something such as a prize?" Biggert asked Phillip Baxley, president of Shell Hydrogen, who testified at the committee hearing in favor of the bill. The bill does not prohibit private companies or individuals from contributing to the prize money and, in fact, suggests such an approach.

Baxley said Shell would be interested in sponsoring a prize but suggested the initial federal "seed money" would put a spotlight on the importance of hydrogen research.

Rep. Brad Miller, a North Carolina Democrat, said he was concerned about singling out hydrogen when the nation should be exploring myriad ways to ensure its energy independence. Perhaps an "E-Prize," or energy prize, would be more appropriate, he suggested.

"Why are we not doing more about conservation?" he asked. "Are we biasing our energy approach by focusing this prize and so much that we're doing on the hydrogen economy?"

Comment: By 2011, it will be far too late...

In this case, the president made the environment a scapegoat for rising gasoline prices. He suggested a false choice-lower prices at the pump, or dirtier air.

It was ironic that the president made his gas-price speech before the Renewable Fuels Association, since the president was citing the association's main product, ethanol, as one of the many reasons that gasoline prices have gone up. Actually, most of the price of gasoline is determined by world crude oil prices, and the presidential saber rattling over Iran hasn't helped that. But it's unlikely the president will make a speech in Tehran anytime soon.

Regarding clean air requirements, the president noted that some state officials are requesting temporary waivers of clean-gasoline standards as a means of reducing price pressure. (Pennsylvania requested a waiver earlier this week for gasoline sold in the Philadelphia area.)

A short-term waiver isn't the worst possible outcome, as long as it is extremely limited. But health and environmental groups should and will protest any effort to make long-term weakening changes to gasoline standards.

The real truth is that oil companies could have anticipated this problem and planned for it better. Instead, they are taking advantage of a situation they helped create.

Compare the following presidential myths to the reality:

Myth #1: Clean air standards must be relaxed.

Bush:

Under federal quality-air quality laws, some areas of the country are required to use fuel blend called reformulated gasoline. Now, as you well know, this year we're going-undergoing a rapid transition in the primary ingredient in reformulated gas-from MTBE to ethanol...

Yet state and local officials in some parts of our country worry about supply disruption for the short term. They worry about the sudden change from MTBE to ethanol-the ethanol producers won't be able to meet the demand. And that's causing the price of gasoline to go up some amount in their jurisdictions.

And some have contacted us to determine whether or not they can ask the EPA to waive local fuel requirements on a temporary basis ... So I'm directing EPA Administrator Johnson to use all his available authority to grant waivers that would relieve critical fuel supply shortages. And I do that for the sake of our consumers.

Reality:

In last year's energy bill, Congress actually eliminated the requirement that cleaner reformulated gasoline contain MTBE or ethanol. MTBE makers-including ExxonMobil-decided to stop shipping its product after Congress refused to give them a deal absolving these big water polluters from product liability lawsuits. But the companies have known about that congressional decision for nearly a year. They could have arranged a smoother transition to new gasoline blends. But scarcity drives up prices-and oil profits.

Myth #2: Environmental requirements have blocked oil companies from building new refineries.

Bush:

There has not been a new refinery built in America in 30 years.

Reality:

In declaring that part of the problem is that we haven't built new refineries in the U.S. in decades, the president is being simply disingenuous. As he well knows from his days in the business, the big oil companies decided for economic reasons that it was more cost-effective to expand existing refineries than build new ones. In fact, they have managed those expansions to avoid a gasoline glut that could lead to lower prices.

Myth #3: Some mythical entity has created "boutique fuels" around the nation.

Bush:

The number of boutique fuels has expanded rapidly over the years, and America now has an uncoordinated and overly complex set of fuel rules ... I want to simplify the process for the sake of our consumers.

Reality:

Some states have adopted specialized fuels-usually at the request of the oil industry, which has frequently argued in favor of such fuels instead of cleaner gasoline. The oil industry has frequently profited by this seeming confusion.

In last year's energy bill, Congress limited the number of future blends. But the oil industry has not offered to return any of the associated profits to consumers.

The president and Republican-led Congress could have seen the rising gas prices coming miles away. The time to worry about it was last year when they were writing the monster energy bill, loaded with subsidies to energy companies. That's when concrete steps could have been taken to wean America from its oil addiction. Instead, the president is exploiting the public's anxiety over gas prices to advance his own oil-driven energy agenda.

Frank O'Donnell is president of Clean Air Watch , a 501(c)3 nonpartisan, nonprofit organization aimed at educating the public about clean air and the need for an effective Clean Air Act.

That said, if Bush is not in the mood for "jawboning," he could at least use a little pillow talk with his buddies in Saudi Arabia and get them to open the spigots.

During campaign 2000, Bush told Americans that he had an energy plan that would reduce gas prices at the pumps and here we sit 5 years later, with the highest prices in history.

The high energy costs are affecting everyone, from commuters and consumers, to public and private programs. The damage is devastating everywhere.

Since Bush took office, gas prices have increased 62.5% from $1.44 per gallon in January 2001 to $2.34 in March 2006. The average household with children will spend about $3,343 on transportation fuel costs this year, an increase of 75% since 2001, according to the Energy Information Administration, Retail Gasoline Prices, and Household Vehicle Energy Use: Latest Data and Trends, November 2005.

And gas prices are still rising. As of April 24, 2006, the AAA Daily Fuel Gauge report said, nationally, the average price for a gallon of regular gas was $2.90, or a 15.5% hike over the $2.51 price per gallon a month ago.

So where is all the money going? One need not look far. In 2005, the world's largest oil company, ExxonMobil, reported the most profitable year in US corporate history, earning more than $36 billion.

Economists say oil producers and refiners, not gas stations, are making a killing. The five largest refineries, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Shell, Valero, and British Petroleum (BP) have recorded $228 billion in profits since 2001, according to testimony at a congressional hearing last November.

In 1999, refiners made 23 cents for each gallon processed and in 2004, they made 41 cents a gallon, according to Department of Energy data.

While watching oil company profits skyrocket, the average American household spent about $107 more for heating this past winter compared to the year before. In 2005-06, households heating with natural gas paid $402, or 86% more than they paid in 2001-2002. Consumers of heating oil paid $759, or 121% more this winter than they paid in 2001-2002, according to the Energy Information Administration, Short Term Energy Outlook, April 2006.

Family budgets, already strained by the rising cost of health care and health insurance, including higher co-payments and deductibles, as well as prescription drugs, college tuition, and other everyday expenses, are being stretched to the limit.

Energy costs are largely responsible for the declining real wages of working people. With the ever-rising cost of gasoline, employees are seeing their paychecks dwindle by the simple fact that they have to drive back and forth to work.

For many low-income families, gas now burns through 10% of household income. In Wisconsin, according to Consumer News, pawn shops are reporting brisk business as people hock their belongings to raise money for gas.

But it is not only the poor who are affected, a majority of the population is taking a hit. Students cannot afford to drive to school. Owners of recreational vehicles, faced with paying more than $200 to fill up the gas tank, are rethinking vacation trips.

"It's taking food off my table," James of Alexandria, VA told Consumer News. "I am having trouble and I'm late paying my daughter's tuition. No vacation this year. I'm charging gas on my credit card because I don't have $50 to put 20 gallons of gas in my car," he said.

Local governments, already struggling to pay for essential services due to continuous cuts in Federal funding, are overwhelmed in trying to keep school buses, police cars, fire trucks, and other public vehicles on the road.

Senior citizens are already strapped by the extra costs of trying to keep their homes heated, and now the Meals on Wheels program is having trouble delivering food to their homes due to high gas prices.

Rising fuel costs are forcing city and county officials all across the country to boost budgets, cut back on social programs that rely on transportation and scrutinize vehicle use.

For 2005, the Appleton, Wisconsin city budget estimated fuel costs for gasoline and diesel would be $595,000. In October 2005, Appleton Mayor, Tim Hanna, projected actual costs to be $936,000.

The rise in the cost of fuel in the past year forced the city of Charleston, SC to spend $150,000 more than planned just to keep its public vehicles running.

In Winnebago County, Wisconsin, County Executive Mark Harris recently noted the need for more than 100 layoffs, threatening positions once thought indispensable. The county's combined cost for all types of fuel, budgeted at an estimated $1.6 million in 2005, is predicted to rise to nearly $2.2 million in 2006, according to Harris.

Back on August 26, 2005, the Deseret Morning News reported that Arizona was bracing for the financial impact from gas prices. "Already," Deseret reported, "state officials are looking at boosting the state budget next year by nearly $685,000 to make up for the increase in gas costs."

According to the Arizona Republic on October 6, 2005, the Arizona Department of Public Safety will cut the number of miles police will patrol on the highway due to skyrocketing gas prices that could cost the agency an extra $2 million in 2006.

"Officers have been ordered to cut their driving by 10 percent a month and conduct stationary enforcements using radar guns on freeway ramps, medians or overpasses instead of patrolling," the Republic said.

In Calumet County, Wisconsin, finance director, Dan De Bonis, informed county supervisors that motor fuel will cost the county about $91,000 more in 2006, a 62% hike, and that heating costs will increase as much as 44%.

The Bush administration has failed to take any action to deal with the crisis. Every day, American workers, consumers, and small businesses suffer with no solutions in sight. The response from the White House has been to claim that Americans are addicted to oil.

The tax breaks, if any, that average families received under Bush's tax cut program, have long ago been siphoned away at the pump. Yet, while traveling in California last weekend, Bush warned of even higher prices with vacation time approaching.

In a feeble attempt to appease the public this week, Bush said he will temporarily divert oil used to fill the Strategic Petroleum Reserve into the market to drive prices down.

Apparently acknowledging the act as a do-nothing remedy, Bush made the comment, "Every little bit counts."

I doubt that many people appreciated a snide remark like this coming from a guy who has never had to balance a checkbook, never had to worry about paying a heating bill or filling up the gas tank, but who now through some perverse twist of fate, maintains a stranglehold on the nation's purse strings.

The price of crude hit an all-time high of over US $75 a barrel on April 21. In early afternoon trading in New York on Wednesday it was changing hands at US $72.15 a barrel.

Singapore Airlines announced on Wednesday it was slapping an extra US $10 dollars (EUR 8) onto the price of certain long-haul flights.

Air France will on Saturday raise its fuel surcharge by EUR 7 (US $8.70) - the sixth increase since the carrier introduced a fuel supplement in May 2004.

That puts Air France's fuel surcharge up to EUR 51 per one-way long-haul flight, from EUR 44. And since most travellers buy return tickets, the result is a surcharge of EUR 102 per round trip.

Dutch carrier KLM, which was bought by Air France in 2004, upped its fuel surcharge by EUR 5 (US $6.2) to EUR 45 earlier this month.

Five other European airlines introduced similar increases during April - British Airways, German carrier Lufthansa and its subsidiary Swiss, TAP Portugal and Spanish carrier Iberia.

The rise and rise of crude oil prices is an unwelcome development for airlines, some of whom now say fuel has become the most expensive item on their budgets.

Last year their overall fuel bill rose 50 percent to US $92 billion and this year it could be higher still. As a result, the industry made a loss of US$6 billion in 2005 despite a strong increase in air traffic, according to the International Air Transport Association (IATA).

Despite colossal efforts to slash costs, the industry is expected to make a loss of US $2.2 billion this year and only return to profit in 2007, the IATA says.

In the meantime, sky-high crude prices are continuing to play havoc.

US low-cost airline JetBlue Airways announced on Tuesday it was delaying the delivery of 12 A320 planes and hoped to sell off another five, after plunging into the red in the first quarter of 2006.

Other airlines are managing for the moment to limit the damage by resorting to "fuel hedging", or buying their kerosene in advance so as to soften the fluctuations in price.

For example Air France-KLM, whose fuel bill is forecast at EUR 3.5 billion for the 2005-06 fiscal year, is covered for 84 percent of its fuel needs for the period, at a cost of US $39 a barrel.

But the group is steeling itself for difficult times ahead - its coverage is set to dip to 62 percent in 2006-07 and sink to just 34 percent in 2007-08.